Sweden Reverses Nuclear Phase-out Policy

Introduction

On February 5, 2009, Sweden reversed an almost three-decade long nuclear energy phase-out policy. Barring any significant technological developments in the field of power production, or major changes in Sweden's electricity needs, Swedish nuclear power seems here to stay — at least for the foreseeable future. This issue brief details the origins of Sweden's nuclear energy program, its importance to the country's electricity production needs, and how nuclear power is playing an important role in relation to Sweden's role as a leader in the fight against global warming. This brief also examines Swedish political discourse of the 1970s which led to the rejection of nuclear power in a 1980 referendum, and subsequently how a credible and long-term energy policy phasing out nuclear power failed to emerge. Finally, the brief discusses the national and international factors involved in Sweden's decision to abandon its phase-out policy.

Sweden's Electricity Generation by Fuel

Source: www.world-nuclear.org

Sweden's Sources of Electricity[2]

Sweden relies heavily on hydro and nuclear power for its electricity production, a trend that began in the 1970s. As Figure 1 shows, all other sources of electricity have played a relatively minuscule role in the last 30 years. Oil, a prominent power source before the emergence of nuclear energy, lost its attractiveness among Swedish policymakers and populace as a result of the oil shocks in the 1970s. Renewable sources of electricity contribute to Sweden's energy needs, yet, today, they are far from being a viable replacement for nuclear power.

Forty-two percent of electricity produced in Sweden in 2008 came from nuclear power. Hydropower accounted for 46.9 percent, fossil fuel for 9.7 percent and wind power for 1.4 percent. Over the last three years, electricity production by source has remained fairly constant. The 42 percent of electricity produced from nuclear power in Sweden last year represented 61.3 billion kWh. As a result of hydro electricity production being season and weather dependant, Sweden imports or exports a small amount of electricity every year. In short, the northern European country is heavily dependent on nuclear energy for power production.

Sweden currently has 10 operating nuclear reactors at three locations: Oskarshamn (3), Forsmark (3) and Ringhals (4), all situated in the southern part of the country. Previously, Sweden had operational reactors in Barsebäck and Ågesta. Table 1 shows reactor location, reactor type, electricity production levels, and year the reactor became operable.

Genesis of Sweden's Nuclear Power Program

Up until the 1960s, Sweden relied almost exclusively on its hydroelectric program to power its industrial sector. In the late 1950s, however, exploitation and development of that source of energy became too costly and environmentally destructive. As a result, expansion of hydroelectricity met considerable popular resistance in Sweden and the government legislated to protect the large northern rivers and other waterways from further development.[3] Sweden's decreased reliance on hydropower coincided with a clandestine Swedish nuclear weapons program, from which infrastructural nuclear investments originated in the mid 1960s.[4] As Sweden's nuclear weapons aspirations vanished, the Swedish government came to focus its nuclear efforts exclusively on energy production.[5]

From an energy point of view, Sweden was an excellent candidate for a nuclear power program at the time. In addition to the aforementioned hydropower related concerns, the Nordic country had no oil resources and only small deposits of coal, which at the time of the nuclear power program's inception had not been mined for 30 years.[6] That Sweden possessed Western Europe's largest uranium deposit was also a further incentive to explore the nuclear option. At the time, it was believed that uranium would become a commodity that would generate major export revenue for Sweden.[7] Indeed, Sweden did initially extract uranium from open-cast mines, but it was discovered that the 10,000 metric tonnes of uranium in ores containing between 500 and 2,000 grams uranium per tonne and the 300,000 metric tonnes of uranium in still lower grades were not economically viable for exploitation due to the low grade uranium ores.[8] Today, no uranium is mined in Sweden and the country imports its nuclear fuel from Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan. Enrichment services are also imported. The above-mentioned national and international trends converged so that the nuclear power option quickly gained traction.

From Oil to Nuclear Dependency in the 1970s

In the 1970s, Sweden was the largest per capita importer of oil in the world.[9] The benefits of reducing Swedish dependency on this fossil fuel became abundantly clear during the oil shocks at the beginning of that decade. As a result, the use of nuclear energy in Sweden skyrocketed in the 1970s and within 15 years of the birth of Sweden's nuclear power program the country was the per capita use leader of nuclear power.[10] The change in Sweden's energy mix, away from oil and toward nuclear power, has continued. Between 1973 and 1997 the use of oil as an energy supply declined from 71 to 29 percent, while nuclear energy increased from 1 to 37 percent.[11]

The 1980 Referendum

In 1969 Sweden's first nuclear reactor at Ågesta suffered an electrical problem that threatened to cause a malfunction in the reactor's cooling system. The disaster was averted and the Swedish government was briefed on the incident. The public, however, was not made aware of the episode until 1993 for fears that the emergency would turn people against nuclear power.[12] Notwithstanding inadequate reporting in this case, the issue over nuclear safety became a hotly debated question in parliament, as well as in the Swedish society writ large in the 1970s.

The anti-nuclear movement was spearheaded by the Center Party, which declared in 1973 that they were against Sweden's nuclear power program and would work toward its complete elimination. The debate among the major Swedish political parties over the nuclear issues was fierce throughout the 1970s. The political discourse reached a breaking point at the end of the decade when the Center Party, in 1978, left the coalition government due to disagreements over the nuclear power program. Public fears about the safety of Sweden's nuclear infrastructure were heightened the following year by the Three Mile Island accident in the United States.[13] Due to these political and societal divisions over Sweden's nuclear program, a referendum on the subject matter was held in 1980.[14]

The referendum was of a non-binding, "advisory" nature and there was no option to vote in favor of nuclear energy. The Swedish electorate was given the following three options at the ballot box:

Option one was supported by the conservative party and read:

    Nuclear power shall be phased out, while taking consideration of the need for electric power for the maintenance of employment and welfare. In order to, among other things, lessen the dependency on oil, and while waiting for the availability of renewable energy sources, at most 12 of the reactors shall be used, be they existing or under construction. No further expansion is to take place. The order in which the reactors will be taken out of production will be determined by security concerns.

The second option, supported by the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, was nearly identical to option two, but included the following addition:

    Energy conservation shall be pursued vigorously and stimulated further. The weakest groups in society shall be protected. Measures shall be taken to control consumption of electricity, e.g. prohibiting direct electric heating in the construction of new permanent housing. Research and development of renewable energy sources shall be pursued under the leadership of the community (read: "the government"). Environmental and safety improving measures are to be carried out. A special safety study is to be made at each reactor. To allow insight by the citizens a special security committee with local ties is appointed at each nuclear power plant. Production of electricity from oil and coal is to be avoided. The community (read: "the government") shall have the main responsibility for production and distribution of electric power. Nuclear power plants and other future installations for the production of significant electric power shall be owned by the state and by the municipalities. Excessive profits from hydroelectric power generation are reduced by taxation.

The third option, supported by the Center Party, Christian Democratic Party and the Left Communist Party, read:

    NO to continued expansion of nuclear power. Phasing out of the currently operating six reactors with at most ten years. A conservation plan for reduced dependency on oil is to be carried through on the basis of: continued and intensified energy conservation; greatly increased development of renewable energy sources. The operating reactors are subjected to heightened safety requirements. Non-fueled reactors will never be put into production. Uranium mining is to be prohibited in our country. If ongoing or future safety analyses demand it, immediate shutdown is to take place. The work against nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons shall be intensified. No fuel enrichment is permitted and the export of reactors and reactor technology is to cease. Employment will increase through alternative energy production, more effective conservation of energy and refinement of raw materials.

The referendum's result heavily favored option two, 39.1 percent of the votes, and option three, 38.7 percent of the votes, with option three receiving 18.9 percent of the 4.7 million votes cast, representing a 75.7 percent voter turnout.[15]

That Swedes did not have the chance to support nuclear energy as a means to produce electricity was a major flaw. Although none of the major political parties at the time were in favor of an indefinite Swedish nuclear energy program, there were prominent voices in Swedish society that supported such an approach, among them Hans Blix, who was the country's foreign minister between 1978 and 1979.

Also, the advisory, non-binding, nature of the referendum left plenty of political maneuvering for the parties in the Swedish parliament. Notwithstanding being under no legal obligation to enforce the referendum's result, the Swedish parliament nevertheless did decide that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that Sweden's nuclear power program should be "phased-out" by 2010. With that decision, Sweden became the first out of five countries that have had a national nuclear phase-out policy. Other countries include Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

The Non-Emergence of a Phase-Out Policy

Despite the 1980 referendum and the decision by the Swedish parliament to phase out nuclear energy, the Swedish government has to date not produced a credible, long term energy policy with a view to dismantle its entire nuclear power program. Popular pressure on the Swedish government to do so has come and gone in the last three decades. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster — which outside of the Soviet Union was first discovered in Sweden three days after the accident in the form of radioactive fallout — brought the debate to the forefront of Swedish political discourse.[16] The accident generated increased fears of radiation and safety and in 1988 the Social Democratic-led Swedish government set 1995/1996 as the years for beginning the implementation of a phase-out plan, including the closing of two nuclear reactors.[17] This decision was overturned by a center-right governing coalition three years later in light of fierce criticism from industry and labor unions regarding its potential cost. These concerns were well founded as "an early [phase-out]…would cost the [Swedish] society more than SEK 200 billion. The price of electricity for the electricity intensive industry (paper and steel) would double with the result that between 50,000 to 100,000 persons would lose their jobs."[18] In a country that places great emphasis on the welfare and employment of its citizens, amidst these reports, it would have been political suicide to continue to press seriously for a phase-out.

In 1995, a Swedish parliamentarian energy commission reinforced the economic obstacles of phasing-out nuclear energy, highlighting in its report both the economic and environmental repercussions.[19] Notwithstanding these reports, two years later, in 1997, a coalition of parties in the Swedish parliament reached agreement on shutting down two of Sweden's nuclear reactors, which they did in 1999 and 2005 respectively.[20]

In contrast to a credible phase-out strategy, Sweden has had in place, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), "an energy policy programme" geared toward reducing electricity consumption, promoting renewable sources for electricity generation as well as energy efficiency.[21] In its review of Sweden's energy policies in 2000, the IEA discarded natural gas and coal as substitutes for nuclear power as the impact on greenhouse gas emissions would be too negative for the environmentally conscious Nordic state.[22] Further, as a result of a previous Swedish parliamentary decision regarding hydropower — putting limitations on capacity generated from this source as noted above — that energy source will also not be a reliable replacement for nuclear power.

Instead, the IEA pointed to renewable energy sources as being the energy policy of the future for Sweden. Yet there are significant and lasting obstacles to this approach. For example, Sweden would have to triple its capacity for biofuel-generated power to replace one nuclear reactor.[23] As noted above, Sweden has 10 operational nuclear reactors and for biofuel to replace the power generated from these reactors it would subsequently have to increase 30 fold. This is without doubt a considerable challenge. The IEA has also cautioned that even though Sweden has had great success in improving energy efficiency and reducing the link between economic growth and electricity consumption, progress between 1988 and 2000 was only negligible.[24]

In light of the challenges in connection to the phasing-out of nuclear power in Sweden, the IEA's 2004 review of Swedish energy policies called on Sweden "to take into account the costs associated with replacing nuclear power and the implications for Sweden's energy security, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic growth. Such information should be widely disseminated to the general public. Concrete plans for replacing the phased-out capacity should be developed and deployed as soon as decisions on this issue are final."[25] The 2008 IEA review went even further and outright denounced Sweden's phase-out policy as a sensible national policy.[26] The document stated that a "phase-out [of nuclear energy] would be challenging, as around 45% of electricity in Sweden is generated by nuclear power, and in the post-Kyoto period, targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be stricter than at present. Against this background, it is hard to see how phasing out nuclear energy could serve Sweden's broader energy policy goals."[27] Another issue worth noting is that if Sweden were to phase out its nuclear program, the country would become increasingly dependent on Russian oil and gas.

It is because of these energy realities and a heavy dependency on nuclear power for electricity generation, coupled with a new Swedish coalition government voted into office in 2006 after 24 years of nearly unbroken Social Democratic rule, that the phase-out policy was abandoned in early 2009.[28]

Phase-out Abandoned

In 2005, ahead of Swedish elections that were to take place the following year, the Center Party — historically the most energetic anti-nuclear force in Swedish political discourse — aligned itself with three pro-nuclear center-right Swedish parties. Simultaneously, the Center Party's leadership indicated that nuclear phase-out was unrealistic as a result of growing concerns over climate change and increasing electricity prices.[29] The reversal in policy was also a political move so that the Center Party could join the four-party alliance in challenging the Social Democratic-led government in the 2006 elections. In a manifesto ahead of the election campaign, the alliance parties decided to keep the nuclear issue off the agenda until the end of a prospective first term in office with a view to project unity vis-à-vis the Swedish electorate. The governing block, consisting of three parties, was not able to show the same cohesiveness throughout the 2006 elections. Two of the parties, the Green Party and the Left Party, were strongly against nuclear power, while the Social Democratic Party was split internally over the issue.[30]

In the middle of the Alliance's first term, the Christian Democratic Party and the Liberal People's Party solidified their commitment to nuclear energy. In 2007, the Christian Democrats essentially rejected the phase-out policy as the party decided to allow expansion of Sweden's nuclear program after 2010.[31] The Liberal People's Party also hardened their stance in favor of nuclear energy, proposing in 2008 that four new reactors should be built to replace those due to be retired in 2020.[32]

Then, on February 5, 2009, the Alliance government in a policy document — A sustainable energy and climate policy for the environment, competitiveness and long-term stability — can formally be said to have reversed Sweden's nuclear power phase-out policy.[33] The policy document recognizes that Sweden, as noted above, relies almost exclusively on hydropower and nuclear power for its supply of electricity and that in light of climate change being a top national priority "nuclear power will…remain an important source of Swedish electricity production for the foreseeable future."[34] The Alliance government, however, also stressed "continued gradual increase of renewable electricity production."[35]

On the more pragmatic level the Swedish government decided, interalia, to allow "new construction at existing [nuclear] sites within the framework of a maximum of ten reactors. It will be possible to grant permits for successively replacing current reactors as they reach the end of their technological and economic life"; to annul the 1997 Nuclear Phase-Out Act; and to lift prohibition against new construction in the 1984 Nuclear Activities Act.

Some observers noted a catch with the Alliance's new policy initiative. In the aforementioned policy document, the government stated that it would not provide financial support to the nuclear energy sector for replacing or expanding Sweden's nuclear energy program.[36] This is important due to the expensive nature of the industry and long lead-time associated with nuclear plant construction. Companies in other parts of the world, including on the European continent, Asia, and the United States, have been hesitant to commit to projects without the support of government subsidies.[37]

Conclusion

A number of observations and conclusions with regard to Sweden's nuclear history, its phase-out policy, and recent policy reversal can be made. First, Swedish governments since 1980s have never been under a legal obligation to craft a credible long-term energy policy that did not include the nuclear option. The 1980 referendum, as noted above, was of a non-binding, advisory nature and that fact may have contributed to the failure of Swedish governments to create a nuclear phase-out policy amidst increasing energy needs and shifting national priorities. Indeed, following the Alliance government's policy reversal, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick Reinfeldt stressed that he did not feel committed to the 1980 referendum as it did not provide any guidance on how to replace electricity generated from nuclear power.[38]

Second, over time public opinion against nuclear energy has diminished. At the time of the policy reversal in early 2009, 62 percent of Swedes supported a Swedish nuclear program. Only 19 percent was against.[39] With public opinion supporting an abandonment of the phase-out policy there were very few political liabilities for any political party — even the Center Party, which had historically been most adamant about nuclear phase-out — to move away from an anti-nuclear stance.

Third, as Sweden reversed its nuclear policy it fell in line with two trends occurring throughout Europe. One of them was that the other four aforementioned phase-out countries had either reversed their policy or at least partly back-tracked from it.[40] The other trend Sweden followed with its decision was increased European reliance on nuclear energy as a means to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.[41] Today, almost 30 percent of Europe's net electricity generation comes from nuclear power and Europe's nuclear reliance has been rising steadily over the last two decades.[42] As a case in point, Finland is building the world's largest nuclear power plant, which will be its fifth, and on the day of Sweden's phase-out reversal, Helsinki stated that it would build a sixth nuclear power plant.[43]

Other nuclear neighborhood news includes Poland, which seeks to reduce its dependency on oil with two nuclear power stations. The Poles are also considering a joint nuclear venture with the Baltic countries over the replacement of Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear-power complex.[44] France and Great Britain are also expanding their nuclear power program and even Germany — traditionally anti-nuclear — has expressed interest in a renewed debate over the construction of new nuclear power plants.[45]

Fourth, Sweden's changing priorities contributed greatly to the turnaround in nuclear energy policy. Sweden has an ambitious climate policy, an issue that is a top priority for the Nordic country — most recently showcased as Sweden chose to make the issue a key priority during its European Union presidency. Nuclear energy can, and will after the policy reversal, play a key role for Sweden in trying to reach its goals in the climate change area. Those who hope that renewable energy sources will, in the near future, replace the approximately 45 percent of electricity that nuclear power generates every year will have to remain patient. Luis Echávarri, director general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, has said that "using renewable sources to generate those same quantities of power would present huge technical and financial challenges, and might even be impossible…"[46]

Finally, what are the chances of a recurrence of a Swedish nuclear phase-out policy that will actually produce a long term and credible strategy to that end? Today, it seems unlikely at best that Stockholm will revert back to its previous stance on the nuclear issue — at least one that will produce a concrete plan. The alliance parties have managed to unite behind one nuclear energy policy, while the left block is more dispersed in its views. This means that whoever governs Sweden after the 2010 parliamentary elections, a phase-out policy — other than a hollow declaration — is unlikely to return. In support of this statement it is worth noting that the left wing of the Swedish political spectrum ruled the country almost uninterrupted between 1980 and 2006 without producing an implementable energy policy free of nuclear power. Hence, unless there are any major technological developments with regard to electricity production, or major changes in Sweden's electricity needs then its nuclear energy program seems to be here to stay; if not permanently, at least for a foreseeable future.

Source:

[1] The author wishes to thank Professor Paul Sullivan for his review and comments, as well as Richard Sabatini for research and editing assistance.
[2] The data in this section comes from World Nuclear Association, Sweden country brief updated September 2009, www.world-nuclear.org.
[3] Tomas Kåberger, "History of nuclear power in Sweden" Estudos Avançados, vol.21 no.59, p. 227, São Paulo, Jan./Apr. 2007, www.scielo.br; "A sustainable energy and climate policy for the environment, competitiveness and long-term stability," Swedish government Nuclear Energy Policy document officially ending Sweden's nuclear phase-out policy, February 5, 2009, p. 4, www.sweden.gov.se.
[4] Christer Larsson, "Historien om en svensk atombomb, 1945-1972," [The tale about a Swedish nuclear weapon, 1945-1972], Ny Teknik No 17, pp. 33-83, April 1985.
[5] Wendy Mbekelu, Public Broadcasting Service country brief on Sweden's nuclear program, May 2, 2005, www.pbs.org.
[6] "Sweden: Yes, Thanks to Nuclear Power," Time Magazine, April 7, 1980, www.time.com.
[7] "Sweden: Yes, Thanks to Nuclear Power," Time Magazine, April 7, 1980, www.time.com.
[8] The International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Energy Assessment of Sweden in 2002, p. 802, www-pub.iaea.org.
[9] The International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Energy Assessment of Sweden in 2002, p. 802, www-pub.iaea.org.
[10] The International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Energy Assessment of Sweden in 2002, p. 802, www-pub.iaea.org.
[11] The International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Energy Assessment of Sweden 2002, p. 803.
[12] The accident was revealed on April 13, 1993, when the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter published an article about it.
[13] The data in this section comes from World Nuclear Association, Sweden country brief updated September 2009, www.world-nuclear.org.
[14] Tomas Kåberger, "History of nuclear power in Sweden" Estudos Avançados, vol.21 no.59, p. 229, São Paulo, Jan./Apr. 2007, www.scielo.br.
[15] Numbers collected from official governmental Swedish website detailing all Swedish referendums, www.regeringen.se.
[16] David Murray, "Chernobyl fallout continues," Courier Mail, April 25, 2009, www.news.com.au.
[17] The International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Energy Assessment of Sweden 2002, p. 812.
[18] The International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Energy Assessment of Sweden 2002, p. 812.
[19] Final Report of the 1994 appointed Swedish Energy Commission put together to study the opportunities and challenges of a nuclear phase-out.
[20] Per Hedberg and Sören Holmberg, "Swedish Nuclear Power Policy: A Compilation of Public Record Material," April 2008, www.som.gu.se.
[21] "IEA Calls for Further Clarification of Swedish Nuclear Policy, Recommends Greater Receptiveness to Natural Gas," International Energy Agency Press Release on October 20, 2000, www.iea.org.
[22] "IEA Calls for Further Clarification of Swedish Nuclear Policy, Recommends Greater Receptiveness to Natural Gas," International Energy Agency Press Release on October 20, 2000, www.iea.org.
[23] "Energy Policies of IEA Countries – Sweden- 2008 Review," International Energy Agency Review, p. 11, www.iea.org.
[24] "IEA Calls for Further Clarification of Swedish Nuclear Policy, Recommends Greater Receptiveness to Natural Gas," International Energy Agency Press Release on October 20, 2000, www.iea.org.
[25] "Energy Efficiency Updates (2004)" International Energy Agency, p. 7, www.iea.org.
[26] "Energy Policies of IEA Countries – Sweden- 2008 Review," International Energy Agency Review, p. 11, www.iea.org.
[27] "Energy Policies of IEA Countries – Sweden- 2008 Review," International Energy Agency Review, p. 11, www.iea.org.
[28] A center right Coalition ruled Sweden for three years between 1991 and 1994.
[29] The data in this section comes from World Nuclear Association, Sweden country brief updated September 2009, www.world-nuclear.org.
[30] "Recalled to half-life," The Economist, February 12, 2009, www.economist.com.
[31] Lena Hennel, "Kd öppnar för mer kärnkraft," Svenska Dagbladet, 31 mars, 2007, www.svd.se.
[32] The data in this section comes from World Nuclear Association, Sweden country brief updated September 2009, www.world-nuclear.org.
[33] "A sustainable energy and climate policy for the environment, competitiveness and long-term stability."
[34] "A sustainable energy and climate policy for the environment, competitiveness and long-term stability," Swedish government Nuclear Energy Policy document officially ending Sweden's nuclear phase-out policy, February 5, 2009, p. 3, www.sweden.gov.se.
[35] "A sustainable energy and climate policy for the environment, competitiveness and long-term stability," Swedish government Nuclear Energy Policy document officially ending Sweden's nuclear phase-out policy, February 5, 2009, p. 4, www.sweden.gov.se.
[36] "A sustainable energy and climate policy for the environment, competitiveness and long-term stability," Swedish government Nuclear Energy Policy document officially ending Sweden's nuclear phase-out policy, February 5, 2009, p. 5, www.sweden.gov.se.
[37] Keith Johnson, "Sweden Goes Nuclear, Aims to Build New Reactors," Wall Street Journal blog entry on February 5, 2009, blogs.wsj.com.
[38] Terry Macalister, "Sweden lifts ban on nuclear power," The Guardian, February 5, 2009, www.guardian.co.uk.
[39] "Kärnkraften åter en het fråga" [Nuclear power again a hotly debated topic], Swedish Public Radio, February 3, 2009, www.sr.se.
[40] Brian Parkin, "Merkel Favors Extending Nuclear Phase-Out by Up to 15 Years," Bloomberg News, September 8, 2009, www.bloomberg.com; "Belgium backtracks on nuclear phase out," Deutsche Welle, October 13, 2009, www.dw-world.de; "Spain backtracks on nuclear power phase-out," Expatica, July 3, 2009, www.expatica.com; Stephen Brown and Deepa Babington, "Italy seeks nuclear power revival with French help," Reuters, February 24, 2009, https://uk.reuters.com.
[41] Tara Patel, "Sweden, Finland Boost Europe's March to Nuclear Power," Bloomberg News, February 5, 2009, www.bloomberg.com.
[42] Annual Energy Review 2008, Department of Energy, Figure 11.16, "World Net Generation of Electricity," p. 336, www.eia.doe.gov; According to a European Environment Agency from 1985-1998 the contribution from nuclear fuel rose by 42.3 percent. See assessment, https://ims.eionet.europa.eu.
[43] "Recalled to half-life," The Economist, February 12, 2009, www.economist.com.
[44] "Recalled to half-life," The Economist, February 12, 2009, www.economist.com.
[45] Tara Patel, "Sweden, Finland Boost Europe's March to Nuclear Power," Bloomberg News, February 5, 2009, www.bloomberg.com; Terry Macalister, "Sweden lifts ban on nuclear power," The Guardian, February 5, 2009, www.guardian.co.uk.
[46] James Kanter, "Sweden Takes Another Look at Nuclear Power," The New York Times, February 5, 2009,www.nytimes.com.